JUDGMENT The issue in the present writ petition arises under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short the Act). The present writ petition is filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings bearing No.D5/3020/2008 dated 01.08.2009 of the 1st respondent, as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the judgments rendered by the competent civil Court and consequently set aside the same. Though the petitioner prayed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, the prayer is considered as Writ of Certiorari, inasmuch as the petitioner assails the order dated 01.08.2009 of 1st respondent under Section 9 of the Act. Through the order impugned, the 1st respondent allowed the revision and set aside the orders of Revenue Divisional Officer, R.R East Division in file No.A2/820/2007 dated 11.04.2008. The parties have been pursuing the legal remedies before the revenue authorities as well as the competent civil Court. The averments, prayers etc., of parties before revenue authority and civil Court are stated separately. The subject matter of present writ petition is an extent of Ac.7-20 gts in Sy.No.223 of Pocharam Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, R.R. District. The controversy between parties is stated in great detail by 2nd respondent in his order dated 11.04.2008. As there is no controversy on these averments, I consider them briefly. Smt. Baddam Narasamma and her son B. Laxma Reddy purchased the petition land through registered sale deed dated 10.06.1986 (Regd. No.1650/86). On 17.06.1991, the said Laxma Reddy executed gift deed in favour of his mother B. Narasamma. B. Narasamma thus became owner of entire extent. B. Laxma Reddy is the father of respondents 4 and 5 and B. Narasamma is their paternal grandmother. It is further averred that on 10.10.1991. B. Narasamma executed an unregistered gift deed in favour of respondents 4 and 5, who were minors then. At the instance of respondents 4 and 5, an application under Section 5-A of the Act was made for regularization of unregistered gift deed and for issuance of Form 13-B certificate. The same was taken on file as ROR/2729/91. Through order dated 15.12.1991 read with 24.06.1992, 3rd respondent regularized the gift deed in favour of respondents 4 and 5 and issued form 13-B certificate to them. B. Narasamma being aggrieved by the regularization order of 3rd respondent filed appeal before 2nd respondent. The same was taken on file as ROR/2729/91. Through order dated 15.12.1991 read with 24.06.1992, 3rd respondent regularized the gift deed in favour of respondents 4 and 5 and issued form 13-B certificate to them. B. Narasamma being aggrieved by the regularization order of 3rd respondent filed appeal before 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent through order dated 28.04.1993 while setting aside the regularization in favour of respondents 4 and 5 remitted the matter to 3rd respondent for de novo enquiry and decide the dispute after affording fair opportunity to both parties. Through order dated 25.06.1993, the 3rd respondent refused the request of respondents 4 and 5 for regularization of unregistered gift deed dated 10.10.1991. This time it became the turn of respondents 4 and 5 to file appeal against the order dated 25.06.1993 of 3rd respondent. Accordingly, an appeal was filed in File No.B/645/93. On 30.10.1993, the 2nd respondent dismissed the appeal filed by respondents 4 and 5 and confirmed the order of Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) dated 25.06.1993. Respondents 4 and 5 carried the matter by way of revision before the 1st respondent. On 25.09.1995, the 1st respondent allowed the revision filed by respondents 4 and 5 and set aside the orders of the 2nd and 3rd respondents dated 30.10.1993 and 25.06.1993 respectively. With the issuance of orders by 1st respondent, consequential steps for entry of their names in revenue record was taken up. B. Narasamma, it is alleged that through registered sale deed dated on 20.04.1995, has sold the petition land in favour of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner having come to know the order of Joint Collector dated 25.09.1995 filed W.P.No.29480 of 1995. This Court through order dated 22.11.2001 directed the MRO to reconsider the matter after giving notice to parties and pass appropriate orders within six weeks. The remand of case by this Court to 3rd respondent has commenced the fresh round of litigation between the writ petitioner and 4th and 5th respondents herein. The 3rd respondent through order dated 30.11.2006, after taking note of the material available on record and also the sworn statement of B. Narasamma, has concluded that regularization in favour of 4th and 5th respondents is in order and has not seen any reason to differ with the orders of Joint Collector dated 25.09.1995. The 3rd respondent through order dated 30.11.2006, after taking note of the material available on record and also the sworn statement of B. Narasamma, has concluded that regularization in favour of 4th and 5th respondents is in order and has not seen any reason to differ with the orders of Joint Collector dated 25.09.1995. In other words, the 3rd respondent through his orders 30.11.2006 confirms the grant of regularization in favour of 4th and 5th respondents. The writ petitioner filed appeal against the order dated 30.11.2006 of 3rd respondent and 2nd respondent through order dated 11.04.2008 has set aside the order of MRO dated 30.11.2006 and allowed the appeal. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the findings of 2nd respondent viz., that the parties in the appeal before 2nd respondent have filed suits and that the findings of the civil Court have bearing on the correction of entries by the revenue authorities under the Act. If the findings are taken note of and due implication is given thereto, it is observed by 2nd respondent that issuance of proceedings by 3rd respondent confirming regularization in favour of 4th and 5th respondents, is unsustainable. Fourth and 5th respondents being aggrieved by the order dated 11.04.2008 filed revision under Section 9 of the Act before 1st respondent. Through the order impugned in writ petition, the revision filed by 4th and 5th respondents was allowed. The 2nd respondent referred to the finding of the trial Court in the common judgment dated 10.02.2003 in O.S.No.18 of 1996 to come to the conclusion that the Civil Court has recorded a finding on the binding nature of unregistered gift deed dated 10.10.1991 on the writ petitioner and failed to take note of the findings of the appellate Court. The 1st respondent through order impugned exclusively considers the findings of the appellate Court in the judgment dated 21.06.2006 in A.S.No.61 of 2003 in the Court of the II-Additional District Judge, R.R. District and allowed the revision. On 23.10.2006, 3rd respondent records statement of B. Narasamma and confirms regularization without reference to the decree and judgment of civil Court. B. Narasamma executed sale deed dated 20.04.1995 in favour of petitioner after regularization orders dated 15.12.1991 were set aside and subsequently confirmed by 3rd respondent through fresh order dated 25.06.1993. On 23.10.2006, 3rd respondent records statement of B. Narasamma and confirms regularization without reference to the decree and judgment of civil Court. B. Narasamma executed sale deed dated 20.04.1995 in favour of petitioner after regularization orders dated 15.12.1991 were set aside and subsequently confirmed by 3rd respondent through fresh order dated 25.06.1993. The writ petitioner being the purchaser having come to know of these proceedings before the revenue authorities invoked the jurisdiction of the civil Court as well as the jurisdiction of this Court by filing W.P.No.29480 of 1995. It is matter of record that the three rival contestants viz., B. Narasamma, respondents 4 and 5 and writ petitioner filed three suits before the II-Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District for various reliefs concerning the very same property. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed O.S.No.18 of 1996 against the husband of writ petitioner, the writ petitioner and another third party by name Veeraiah for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs’ possession to the suit schedule. B. Narasamma filed O.S.No.169 of 1996 for cancellation of sale deed dated 20.04.1995 executed in favour of writ petitioner. The writ petitioner filed O.S.No.329 of 1998 for declaration of right and title to an extent of Ac.7-20 gts in Sy.No.223 of Pocharam village and for consequential reliefs of injunction. Through common judgment dated 10.02.2003, the trial Court dismissed O.S.No.18 of 1996 filed by respondents 4 and 5 and also O.S.No.169 of 1996 filed by B. Narasamma. The trial Court decreed O.S.No.329 of 1998 filed by the writ petitioner for declaration of title and perpetual injunction. B. Narasamma alone filed A.S.No.61 of 2003 in the Court of Additional District Judge, R.R. District. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No.18 of 1996 and O.S.No.169 of 1996 did not file appeals against dismissal of suits. Through the judgment and decree dated 21.06.2006, A.S.No.61 of 2003 was dismissed by the appellate Court. The finding which has bearing on the disposal of the present writ petition in the said judgment is as follows: “In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the lower Court in O.S.No.169/96 is hereby confirmed. The finding which has bearing on the disposal of the present writ petition in the said judgment is as follows: “In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the lower Court in O.S.No.169/96 is hereby confirmed. But the dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff is not going to affect the rights of the grand children of the plaintiff to establish their right under the unregistered gift deed alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff if they are advised so. I direct both parties to bear their own costs.” Brief reference to the dismissal of second appeal filed by Narasamma through judgment dated 21.11.2007 in S.A.No.1333 of 2007 is made to complete the narration of this aspect of the matter. On remand by this Court, 3rd respondent through order dated 30.11.2006 by recording the statement of B. Narasamma on 23.10.2006 confirmed the order of Joint Collector dated 25.09.1995. The appeal filed against the order of 3rd respondent dated 30.11.2006 was allowed by 2nd respondent on 11.04.2008 and the revision filed against order dated 11.04.2008 was allowed by 1st respondent on 01.08.2009. Hence, the writ petition. Sri R.K. Suri, learned counsel for writ petitioner, contends that the proceedings under Section 5A taken up at the instance of respondent Nos.4 and 5 are illegal and not maintainable in law and fact. He contends that the petitioner, respondents 4 and 5 and the original owner B. Narasamma have filed comprehensive suits for the reliefs of declaration of title, perpetual injunction and cancellation of sale deed dated 20.04.1995 etc. The suit in O.S.No.329 of 1998 filed by the writ petitioner was decreed as prayed for and the suits filed by respondents 4 and 5 and also the original owner Baddam Narasamma were dismissed. Firstly, the unsuccessful plaintiffs have not filed independent appeals against the decree and judgment in O.S.Nos.18 and 169 of 1996. Secondly, Baddam Narasamma filed A.S.No.61 of 2003 against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.329 of 1998. Thus, the declaratory decree in O.S.No.329 of 1998 has become final and binding. The appellate Court through judgment and decree dated 21.06.2006 dismissed A.S.No.61 of 2003 and this Court confirmed the same in S.A.No.1313 of 2007 through judgment dated 21.11.2007. Secondly, Baddam Narasamma filed A.S.No.61 of 2003 against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.329 of 1998. Thus, the declaratory decree in O.S.No.329 of 1998 has become final and binding. The appellate Court through judgment and decree dated 21.06.2006 dismissed A.S.No.61 of 2003 and this Court confirmed the same in S.A.No.1313 of 2007 through judgment dated 21.11.2007. The learned counsel further contends that firstly the enquiry conducted either by 1st respondent or 3rd respondent is not in accordance with the scheme of the Act. The revenue authorities are bound by the judgment and decree of the competent civil Court. Before the civil Court all the issues which have bearing on the unregistered gift executed in favour of respondents 4 and 5, execution of sale deed in favour of the petitioner and the alleged possession of respondents 4 and 5 were considered and respondents 4 and 5 were unsuccessful before the trial Court. There ought not to be two distinct situations, one in operation of the judgment and decree of the competent civil Court and the orders of revenue authorities under Section 5-A of the Act. The learned counsel places reliance upon the decisions reported in R.S.MURTHY AND ANOTHER v. JOINT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, KAKINADA AND OTHERS 2001(4) ALT 337 and VANGA NARSA REDDY AND ANOTHER v. JOINT COLLECTOR, ADILABAD AND OTHERS 2012(6) ALT 6 . The counsel appearing for the petitioner would urge that the orders of 1st respondent are liable to be set aside, as it suffers from non-application of mind and contrary to the material available record. On the other hand, Sri A. Pulla Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5, contends that the application for regularization under Section 5-A of the Act was made and in the enquiry the circumstances which have bearing for consideration of regularising the transfer are limited as on the date of filing of application for regularization and subsequent transfer by Narasamma are not relevant. Looked at from that angle, it is the submission of learned counsel that the writ petitioner purchased the property on 20.04.1995 and confirmation of regularization by 1st respondent on 25.09.1995 relates back to the date of issue of first regularization viz., 24.06.1992. The learned counsel does not dispute the consequence of competent civil Court rejecting claim of respondents 4 and 5 and original owner B. Narasmma. The learned counsel does not dispute the consequence of competent civil Court rejecting claim of respondents 4 and 5 and original owner B. Narasmma. The learned counsel accepts that the revenue authorities while considering the case for regularization cannot sit in judgment on the findings of competent civil Court. But at the same time, the contention put forward by the learned counsel is that whatever may be the length of enquiry or the time that is taken for regularization certificate under Section 5-A of the Act, the important aspect is the date on which an application is filed for regularization and on that writ petitioner has no locus standi. Looked at from that angle, the petitioner is stranger to the grievance and has no locus to question the order of Joint Collector and the regularization certificate cannot be interfered with by this Court at this stage. If respondents 4 and 5 intend to get their names recorded in record of rights, it is for the competent authority to deicide and pass orders and the case on hand has not reached that stage. Having considered the case of both parties and the material on record, the following points arise for consideration of the Court: 1. Whether the order of 1st respondent suffers from material illegality and irregularity in allowing the revision. 2. Whether the revenue authorities are bound by the decision of competent civil Court in considering the claim under Section 5-A of the Act for regularization? Points (a) and (b): Before adverting to rival contentions, the relevant aspects in the orders of respondents 1 to 3 are noted. The apparent illegality or irregularity committed by 3rd respondent, after remand by this Court, is he failed to follow the detailed procedure under Rule 22 of the A.P. Record of Right Rules and pass order of regularization if the same is permissible in law. The material does not disclose consideration of regularization after taking note of adjudication by civil Court and the same is in accordance with the Act and the Rules. Further, as on the date of passing of order, in the eye of law, the order of 1st respondent-Joint Collector dated 25.09.1995 is not in existence. The petitioner being aggrieved party by order dated 30.11.2006 filed appeal before 2nd respondent. Further, as on the date of passing of order, in the eye of law, the order of 1st respondent-Joint Collector dated 25.09.1995 is not in existence. The petitioner being aggrieved party by order dated 30.11.2006 filed appeal before 2nd respondent. Second respondent though has considered a few relevant aspects, but by relying upon a portion of the judgment dated 10.02.2003 in O.S.No.18 of 1996 and connected matters, held that in view of the adjudication by the competent Civil Court which are binding on the revenue authorities, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of MRO dated 30.11.2006. Though the reasoning of 2nd respondent is correct, the same is not complete in all material aspects of the case. Respondents 4 and 5 preferred revision before 1st respondent and 1st respondent by referring to a portion of the judgment in A.S.No.61 of 2003 allowed the revision and set aside the order of 2nd respondent dated 11.04.2008. Thus, the binding nature of the judgment of civil Court is not at all considered by 1st respondent. Section 5-A of the Act reads as follows: Regularization of certain alienations or other transfers of lands: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Registration Act, 1908 or any other law for the time being in force, where a person is an occupant by virtue of alienation or transfer made or effected otherwise than by registered document, such alienee or the transferee is permitted to apply to the Mandal Revenue officer for a certificate declaring that such alienation or transfer is valid. With the introduction of Section 5-A, the Legislature provided for regularization of a few alienations or transfers which are otherwise incomplete or invalid in law. For the purpose of Section 5-A, rules have been framed under G.O.Ms.No.570 dated 08.06.1989 i.e., the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989. In the case on hand, this Court is concerned with the rule position as set out in G.O.Ms.No.570 dated 08.06.1989. At the first instance, the Rules provided for regularization of transactions anterior to 31.07.1989. In the case on hand, respondents 4 and 5 seek regularization of gift deed dated 10.10.1991. This aspect of the matter though is very crucial has not received the attention of the 3rd respondent as well as the 1st respondent. At the first instance, the Rules provided for regularization of transactions anterior to 31.07.1989. In the case on hand, respondents 4 and 5 seek regularization of gift deed dated 10.10.1991. This aspect of the matter though is very crucial has not received the attention of the 3rd respondent as well as the 1st respondent. This goes to the very root of the maintainability of application at the instance of respondents 4 and 5 in the year 1991. The chronological consideration of the case discloses that through order dated 24.06.1992, 3rd respondent issued Form 13-B certificate in favour of respondents 4 and 5. Through order dated 28.04.1993, the order of regularization was set aside and the case was remitted for de novo enquiry to 3rd respondent. On remand, the 3rd respondent refused to recognize the unregistered gift deed dated 10.10.1991 and rejected the application through order dated 25.06.1993. The rejection was confirmed by the 2nd respondent through order dated 30.10.1993. Respondents 4 and 5 carried the matter by way of revision before the 1st respondent. The crucial aspect of the matter is that when there is no adverse order staring at B. Narasamma, the writ petitioner purchased the property through registered sale deed dated 20.04.1995. Thereafter, respondents 4 and 5 filed suit for perpetual injunction in O.S.No.18 of 1996. It is matter of record that while B. Narasamma did not have right and title to the property, she appeared before the 1st respondent and agreed for regularisation of gift deed dated 10.10.1991 in favour of respondents 4 and 5. Such conduct is required to be examined with care and caution, more particularly by reference to the findings of competent civil Court and the effect of decree of declaration of title and perpetual injunction in favour of writ petitioner. This Court through order dated 22.11.2001 in W.P.No.29480 of 1995 remitted the matter for fresh disposal by 3rd respondent. It is relevant to note that this Court for all purposes remitted the matter to the 3rd respondent for fresh consideration. The 3rd respondent is under legal obligation to consider the request of respondents 4 and 5 for regularization under Section 5-A of the Act by reference to the Rules in vogue through G.O.Ms.No.570. The order of 3rd respondent, except reference to the statement of B. Narasamma, has not looked into any other aspect and ordered regularization. The 3rd respondent is under legal obligation to consider the request of respondents 4 and 5 for regularization under Section 5-A of the Act by reference to the Rules in vogue through G.O.Ms.No.570. The order of 3rd respondent, except reference to the statement of B. Narasamma, has not looked into any other aspect and ordered regularization. Prima facie, the approach of 3rd respondent is arbitrary and illegal and contrary to the provisions of Rule 22 of the A.P. Record of Right Rules. The 2nd respondent though has referred to one crucial aspect of the matter which has bearing on issuance of regularization order has not concluded the reasoning by reference to the comprehensive findings recorded by the civil Courts and the effect of declaration of title in favour of petitioner. The 1st respondent, while reversing the order of 2nd respondent, has not considered any crucial aspects which have bearing on the issue but by reference to one observation of the learned District Judge in A.S.No.61 of 2003 allowed the appeal. I am of the view that the reasoning of 1st respondent to allow the revision suffers from patent illegalities and irregularities. Non-consideration of material available on record vitiates the order impugned. First respondent failed to consider and decide whether the request of respondents 4 and 5 for regularization of gift deed dated 10.10.1991 satisfies the requirements of Section 5-A read with the Rules as contained in G.O.Ms.No.570 dated 08.06.1989. As on the date of filing of application by respondents 4 and 5, the gift deed was beyond the period stipulated i.e., 31.07.1989 in G.O.Ms.No.570 for regularization. For the purpose of grant of regularization, one of the conditions is that the person is in possession of the agricultural land pursuant to alienation/transfer and recorded as such. In the case on hand, even without or before the possession of respondents 4 and 5 could be recorded, attempts for regularization through procedure prescribed under Section 5-A was resorted to by respondents 4 and 5. These crucial aspects are not even taken note of and orders for regularization in a routine manner are passed. This approach clearly suffers from illegality and liable for correction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. These crucial aspects are not even taken note of and orders for regularization in a routine manner are passed. This approach clearly suffers from illegality and liable for correction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Yet another reason to interfere with the order of 1st respondent is that by the time the revenue authorities are considering the request for regularization, the revenue authorities have the advantage of the findings recorded by the competent civil Court. The relevant finding which has bearing for considering the case under Section 5-A or even under Section 5 of the Act is possession of subject property. Firstly, before the civil Court B. Narasamma failed in her attempts to get the sale deed dated 20.04.1995 set aside. The efforts of respondents 4 and 5 to obtain the relief of perpetual injunction by reference to unregistered gift deed dated 10.10.1991 and the consequential proceedings of MRO dated 25.06.1993 have also failed. The respondents ought to have considered the legal implication of the common judgment of the trial Court declaring title of writ petitioner, the failure of contesting parties to prefer appeal against the dismissal of judgments in O.S.No.18 of 1996 and O.S.No.169 of 1996, the dismissal of appeal filed by B. Narasamma as confirmed by this Court in second appeal and passed appropriate orders. The order passed by the 1st respondent cannot be sustained. Section 8(2) of the Act reads as follows:- “If any person is aggrieved as to any rights of which he is in possession by an entry made in any record of rights he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Central Act 47 of 1963) and the entry in the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration.” (Emphasis added) A bare reading of the above provision of law discloses two eventualities viz., (a) a person who is aggrieved of any of the rights he possessed by the entry made in the record of rights, he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for declaration of his right and (b) the entry in record of rights shall be amended in accordance with such declaration by the Court. In R.S. MURTHY’s case (1 supra), the relevant portion reads as follows: “When a person files an application for correction of pass book, he cannot be asked to file a Civil suit because some third party has raised the question of adverse possession therein. It is true that the revenue authorities cannot decide the questions of title and possession, but subject to any decree or order that may be passed in a civil suit, the revenue authorities should exercise their statutory power.” Though this is a case arising under Section 5 of the Act, the learned counsel in support of his contention states that either the amendment or updating of record of rights under Section 5 of Act or after regularization under Section 5(A)(5) of the Act is one and the same. The consequence of regularization is referred in Section 5-A(5) of the Act, which is as follows:- “The recording authority, shall on the production of the certificate issued under sub-section (2) make any entry in the pass book to the effect that the person whose name has been recorded as an occupant is the owner of the property.” In the case on hand, the reference to comprehensive adjudication in favour of writ petitioner through decree and judgment in O.S.No.329 of 1998 is placed and contended that according to Section 8(2) of the Act, the record of rights shall be in accordance with such declaration. Briefly stated, the Act provides for preparation and updating of record of rights; acquisition of rights and amendment/updating of record of rights for regularization of alienations/transfers, issuance of Form 13-B and entry in record of rights in accordance with such certificate. Against these two separate functions under the Act, the remedy of appeal and revision is provided to aggrieved party. Under either of the situations, the concluding act is entry in record of rights. The enquiry under the Act is summary in nature. The decision of recording authority under Section 5-A of the Act is required to be confined to the limited extent of regularizing a transaction which is otherwise not in conformity with the requirement of the Stamp Act/the Registration Act etc. The enquiry under the Act is summary in nature. The decision of recording authority under Section 5-A of the Act is required to be confined to the limited extent of regularizing a transaction which is otherwise not in conformity with the requirement of the Stamp Act/the Registration Act etc. If, in respect of the same property the parties approach or have approached the Civil Court and the Civil Court decided the rights of parties, in the opinion of this Court, the revenue authorities are bound by the judgment and decree of the Civil Court in exercise of their jurisdiction under the Act, because Section 8(2) has made it mandatory to update record of rights in accordance with such declaration. If contrary view is taken, then it results in anomalies and contradictory situations and to avoid such situations, the revenue authorities are bound by the adjudication of competent civil Court in exercise of their power under the Act. It is relevant to refer to the decision in VANGA NARSA REDDY’s case (2 supra), which reads as follows: “The law is well-settled that the Revenue Authorities exercising the jurisdiction under the ROR Act cannot go into the serious questions of title. It has been held by the Courts in a catena of decisions that the revenue authorities are not substitutes for the courts of competent civil jurisdiction and they cannot decide the complicated questions of title in the summary enquiry provided under the ROR Act.” From the above perspective, if the chronology of events in the case is considered, it is evident that the petitioner purchased the property when there is no order of regularization under Section 5-A of the Act. Secondly, B. Narasamma after selling the property in favour of writ petitioner deposes before 1st respondent to accept for regularizing gift deed dated 10.10.1991. By reference to the concession recorded through B. Narasamma, the 1st respondent passed the order dated 25.09.1995. The said order was assailed in W.P.No.29480 of 1995 and matter remitted for reconsideration. Thereafter on remand, the authorities, as referred to above, are bound to consider the judgment and decree of the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.329 of 1998, as confirmed in A.S.No.61 of 2003 and S.A.No.1313 of 2007 while passing orders on the application under Section 5-A of the Act. Thereafter on remand, the authorities, as referred to above, are bound to consider the judgment and decree of the competent Civil Court in O.S.No.329 of 1998, as confirmed in A.S.No.61 of 2003 and S.A.No.1313 of 2007 while passing orders on the application under Section 5-A of the Act. In my considered view, the authorities by operation of Section 8(2) of the Act are under obligation to amend the record of rights as declared by the competent Civil Court. Instead, the 1st and 3rd respondents again by recording a statement on 23.10.2006 of B. Narasamma ordered regularization of gift deed dated 10.10.1991. Viewed from such perspective, I have no hesitation in concluding that the order of 1st respondent suffers from yet another illegality and liable to be set aside. The points are answered accordingly. For the above reasons, I set aside the order impugned and allow the writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand disposed of.